Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the independent, bipartisan 9/11 Commission said the Federal Government is not fulfilling its job of protecting the American people. The 9/11 Commission went on to say that the war in Iraq is a distraction, draining resources from critical American security needs.

Like the 9/11 Commissioners, I am concerned that the war in Iraq is preventing us from dealing with the real threat, a terrorist attack in America. Over the last 3 years, the war in Iraq has cost the American taxpayers more than $320 billion, and yet, as the unanimous National Intelligence Estimate shows, we are less safe today because of the continuing war in Iraq. At the end of this year, the war in Iraq will have gone on longer than World War II.

Despite this distraction from the real struggle against terrorism, as the National Intelligence Estimate said, this Congress should show that it is committed to securing the American people today. We cannot afford to wait until after the November election.

Mr. Speaker, I want to focus like a laser beam on the right of habeas corpus and the untoward effect of this legislation on habeas corpus. This is an ancient doctrine that has been with us since at least the days of Charles I. It has presented difficulties to many American Presidents from Jefferson to Lincoln to Grant to Roosevelt.

We have the power to do much in restricting habeas corpus; but we should do so very, very carefully because it is the protection from tyranny that our forebears sought in the Revolution.

Congress here is entering upon dangerous constitutional shoal waters, and it is, in my belief, unconstitutionally limiting access to habeas corpus. The courts have repeatedly ruled in a restricted fashion whenever Congress or the Presidency has restricted access to habeas corpus and each of us, not just the Supreme Court, but we in the Congress and those in the executive branch, we all take an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States, and this act, by restricting habeas corpus, will not serve America well.

And by so restricting habeas corpus, this bill does not just apply to enemy aliens. It applies to all Americans because, while the provision on page 93 has the word ``alien'' in it, the provision on page 61 does not have the word ``alien'' in it.

Let us say that my wife, who is here in the gallery with us tonight, a sixth generation Oregonian, is walking by the friendly, local military base and is picked up as an unlawful enemy combatant. What is her recourse? She says,

I am a U.S. citizen. That is a jurisdictional fact under this statute, and she will not have recourse to the courts? She can take it to Donald Rumsfeld, but she cannot take it across the street to an article 3 court.

This bill applies to every American, regardless of citizenship status.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to the two chairmen's remarks that I was incorrect in my analysis of the law or of the proposed bill.

I stand by that analysis, and not only is that analysis correct, but this reference to the detention act as a cure for that is totally specious, because this detention act we passed as a rider to an appropriations bill. So any remedy provided by the detention act goes away in the year of appropriation.

If you read that language, that word alien does appear on page 93, but the determination of that jurisdictional fact will be done by a military tribunal, and that is not where American civilians should have their rights determined.

I stand by my analysis of the proposed bill. The two chairmen stand by theirs. This is the best reason why this bill should not be rushed through. The staff cannot be held responsible for drafting errors, and we should not be rushing this kind of legislation through without the careful consideration that it deserves.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support H.R. 1215, the Green Chemistry Research and Development Act. This legislation codifies the ongoing efforts throughout the Federal Government to encourage the development of products and manufacturing processes that are safer, contain fewer toxic compounds, and make better use of recycled materials. I am especially pleased that the bill includes my amendment to authorize a training program at the National Science Foundation. This new program creates partnerships between companies in the chemical industry and colleges and universities to provide professional development training to practicing chemists and chemical engineers in the use of green chemistry concepts and strategies.

During our committee's hearing on last year's version of this bill, it became clear that too few professionals in these fields are exposed to green chemistry in their undergraduate and graduate courses. This lack of training becomes an important barrier to the adoption and use of green chemistry in industrial products and processes.

The partnerships between the academic community and industry that this bill promotes will ensure the courses of study that are put in place are relevant to industry and are designed to provide practicing chemists and chemical engineers with the skills and knowledge they will need to employ green chemistry concepts in their work.

The requirement for cost sharing helps to reinforce the engagement and commitment of companies to the program.

H.R. 1215 provides a good starting point for a Federal effort to promote green chemistry. I urge Members to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise once again to oppose the Trademark Dilution Revision Act.

Trademark law was originally about consumer protection, ensuring consumers were not confused or harmed by the misuse of a famous trademark. However, with the passage of the Federal Trademark Dilution Act in 1995, the issue of trademark dilution became more an issue of property protection. The purpose of that law was to enable businesses to protect the investment that companies have made in branding their products. Consumer confusion was no longer required to establish ``dilution.'' Not surprisingly, private lawsuits in this area jumped from 2,405 in 1990 to 4,187 in 2000.

For example, Starbucks went after a local coffee shop in my district that was named after its owner, Samantha Buck Lundberg. The coffee shop bore the nickname given to her by her family and friends--Sambuck. Ringling Bros.-Barnum and Bailey Circus sued the State of Utah over Utah's advertising slogan that it had ``The Greatest Snow on Earth.'' To the circus this slogan was an obvious play on the long time identification of the circus as ``The Greatest Show on Earth.'' Microsoft sued to prevent use of the term ``Lindows'' for the Linux operating system software and website produced by Lindows, Inc., arguing that it was clearly an attempt to play on the Windows designation of its own operating system. Lindows eventually changed the name of the product and website to ``Linspire'' after losing court cases. Best Western International (the hotel/motel chain) appears to be trying to claim sole right to the word ``Best'' when it comes to using the word in names of hotels or motels. It has sued both Best Inns and Best Value Inns, contending that those names infringe on its trademark.

In recent years, the Supreme Court addressed these lawsuits in Moseley, et al., DBA Victor's Little Secret v. V Secret Catalogue, Inc., et al., in which Victoria's Secret sued a small business in Kentucky. In its opinion, the Court ruled that companies under the Federal Trademark Dilution Act have to prove that their famous brand is actually being damaged before they can use dilution law to force another person or company to stop using a word, logo, or color.

Since trademark laws have an effect not only on famous companies but also on the many small businesses witH legitimate business interests, any antidilution legislation should be very carefully considered so as not to interfere with the rights of small businesses. The goal must be to protect trademarks from subsequent uses that blur, dilute or tarnish that trademark, but it must also be the protection of small business interests from its more powerful corporate counterparts.

Unfortunately, this bill will change trademark law to make it easier for large companies to sue individuals and businesses for trademark dilution, thus potentially creating rights in perpetuity for trademarks. This bill states that no actual harm will have to be proven; large companies will be able arbitrarily to file lawsuits against small businesses and private citizens.

I agree with the Supreme Court in its unanimous decision in Moseley. I think that companies in seeking to impose their trademarks upon the public must show actual harm. If not, we run the risk of trademark owners being able to lock up large portions of our shared language. This open-ended invitation to litigate is especially troubling at a time when even colors and common words can be granted trademark protection.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed time for a change in Iraq. Our troops are currently caught in a deadly civil war between the Sunnis and Shiias, a war that is resulting in the death of American soldiers every night, and hundreds of Iraqi civilians every day. If there was ever a time to change tactics, now is that time.

House Republicans and President Bush cling stubbornly to the mantra ``stay the course,'' but slogans cannot substitute for strategy.

President Bush says American troops will still be on the ground in Iraq when he leaves office in 2009, and that would make the Iraq war longer than World War II. We cannot continue to be bogged down in Iraq's civil war. Conditions there are not getting better. According to the latest Pentagon report, things are actually getting worse and the war in Iraq has put an enormous strain on our military, resulting in military readiness levels at historic lows.

It is time we get back to fighting the real war on terror and not a civil war in Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 4893 because of my opposition to a proposed Indian gambling casino in the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area in Oregon.

We should not be considering a bill of this importance on the suspension calendar with only 40 minutes of debate, no opportunity to amend. This is completely inappropriate.

Regardless of whether you are an opponent or proponent of off- reservation gaming, Members should have an opportunity to bring their concerns to the floor and offer amendments. There are many reasons to oppose this bill, and I have the largest one of them of all: This, an 80-mile long, 4,000-foot-deep gorge. It is our Yosemite. It is our Grand Canyon. It is a national treasure, and it is completely inappropriate to put a gambling casino smack-dab in the middle of this national treasure.

Vote ``no'' on this suspension bill so we can protect the Columbia River Gorge and we can bring a real bill to the floor and have Members debate their concerns and amend this bill appropriately.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of August as Psoriasis Awareness Month and to speak on behalf of the 7.5 million Americans who are afflicted with this disease.

Those affected by psoriasis suffer from chronic, inflammatory, painful, disfiguring and disabling skin irritations referred to as scales that can cover anywhere from small patches of skin to entire sections of their body. Many of those who have psoriasis also suffer from psoriatic arthritis, which causes severe stiffness and swelling of the joints. Psoriasis typically develops between the ages of 15 and 25, and while there are varied treatments, there is no cure for this disease.

This auto-immune disease has become both a burden on the individual and society. Many people afflicted with psoriasis battle social discrimination and stigma because psoriasis is mistakenly thought of as a contagious disease, and sometimes patients needlessly have incorrect or delayed diagnosis. Also, it is estimated that psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis cost the nation 56 million hours of lost work and between $2 billion and $3 billion in treatments each year.

I would like to thank the National Psoriasis Foundation, whose national headquarters is located in Oregon. Their tireless work has brought the struggle of those affected by psoriasis and the need for more psoriasis research through the National Institutes of Health, NIH, to combat this disease to light. Their message of awareness they brought to our offices has been helpful and has worked to elevate understanding of this diseases.

Mr. Speaker, too many people in this country needlessly suffer from psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis. We must work to decrease the amount of incorrect or delayed diagnosis, inadequate treatments and insufficient access to care. I am ready to work with my constituents, the National Psoriasis Foundation and my colleagues to elevate the awareness of psoriasis and expansion of research of effective treatments for this debilitating disease.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill, the Alternative Pluripotent Stem Cell Therapies Enhancement Act. In this bill, Congress is overreaching its authority. The Federal Government already permits this research, through a merit based peer review process led by the scientific community. Congress should not be directing research in which we do not have expertise; we are not scientists.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support for H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, and the override of the President's veto of this monumental commitment to historic scientific research.

Yet again, the administration turned its back on science and chose politics.

Embryonic stem cell research will go on, with or without the United States. Diabetes, Alzheimer's, Lou Gehrig's Disease will be cured, with or without the United States.

The stem cells in an embryo are special tissue. We should not create them with the intent to terminate them later. But here, embryos were created with the intent to bring more children in to the world, and once a baby is born many fertilized eggs are not implanted. The only alternate fate for them now is disposal.

Let us not waste potential human life, let us not waste these fertilized eggs by destroying them. Let us use them to save human lives through stem cell research.

Mr. Speaker, this administration has moved to massively curtail fishing for salmon on the Pacific Coast. This is not just an economic effect. Salmon fishing is part of our culture. It is a part of who we are. This closure is not based on sound science; it is based in raw politics. It is allegedly to benefit one spring salmon run on the Klamath River.

But closure of the ocean will not bring the spring chinook back. What will bring it back, according to NOAA's own scientists, is better water management and taking better care of the water base and ecosystem. Closure of the ocean salmon season will not do any of these things.

Yesterday, we met with NOAA officials, and they decided not to even declare an emergency so that relief can be given for the disaster which they created. We are going to take actions today to alleviate or terminate the disaster that NOAA has created on the northwest coast.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the subcommittee, the chairman and the ranking member and Ranking Member Obey for working with us to get this $2 million placeholder into this bill. This $2 million will be very, very important to working families in Oregon and those many people who fish and those who depend upon the fishing industry.

I wish that our actions today had not been necessary, but they were made necessary by an administrative agency which is absolutely not hearing our words, and it is only through the actions of this committee and this particular subcommittee that our voices are heard and our constituents heard through us.

Mr. Speaker, we deal with such serious topics in this House of Representatives, and so I want to bring to the attention of this House and this Nation a very happy topic. I rise to congratulate the Oregon State University Beavers on winning the College World Series baseball tournament.

This is indeed a Beaver Nation. After taking on UCLA, Stanford, Arizona, and USC, all sunny States, we in the rainy Northwest, with a team of kids from smaller communities all around the State, have successfully won a world championship. This is probably the first world championship since the Portland Trail Blazers won the NBA championship in 1977.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Senior Independence Act of 2006.

The Older Americans Act was enacted in 1965 to establish the Administration on Aging to institute and support Federal nutritional and social programs for this Nation's seniors, and since then, millions of this Nation's elderly have benefited from the Act's many programs.

This Act is more important to the country today than ever before. More than 49 million people in the United States are over the age of 60, making it the fastest growing age group in the country. By 2050, that number will reach nearly 90 million and will count as almost a quarter of our population.

With this rapid demographic increase, it is essential that we ensure the establishment of effective Federal efforts to aid America's elderly. There are more seniors who are minorities, more seniors who are trying to go back to work; more seniors who are living longer; and more seniors living in urban areas. Specifically, the Senior Independence Act will promote home- and community-based supports to help older individuals avoid institutional care, strengthen health and nutrition programs, improve educational and volunteer services, increase Federal, State, and local coordination, and safeguard employment-based training for older Americans.

This Act was conceived forty years ago in a spirit of bipartisanship to better the lives of those put in less fortunate circumstances. I would like to commend Chairman McKeon and Ranking Member Miller today on their spirit of bipartisanship during this reauthorization.

I am especially thankful to the Chairman and his committee staff for working with me to include my amendments that would recognize the growing number of older Americans who are living in urban areas and would encourage life-long learning.

The number of Americans aging in urban areas is growing and its diversity is increasing. Between 1999 and 2030, the urban minority population of 65 and older is projected to increase by 217 percent, as compared with the projected 81 percent increase among the white population. My amendment, which has been included in the bill, will assist urban seniors by providing grants to discover how older Americans can age successfully in urban areas.

The bill also adds my amendment to promote and disseminate information about lifelong learning programs. Researchers and clinicians are increasingly interested in the concept of successful aging, and they are finding that a person who engages in a healthy lifestyle including continuing education, thinking and maintaining social contacts are part of successful.

Together, these amendments will improve the lives of older Americans by helping to address the unique needs of those living in urban areas and also to help promote the benefits of taking part in life-long learning programs.

In closing, I would also like to pause and remember the life and work of Dr. Elizabeth Kutza. Dr. Elizabeth Kutza was the Professor of Community Health and former Director of the Institute on Aging at Portland State University. Dr. Kutza died on Friday, June 9, 2006, after a seven-year battle with breast cancer. Dr. Kutza and her family are in my thoughts and prayers.

Again, I would like to thank Chairman McKeon and Ranking Member Miller for their outstanding writing of this bill and for making sure that the Older Americans Act can continue to provide for the growing number of seniors in our country today.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona seeking to cut all $2.5 million for the Northwest Manufacturing Initiative, NMI.

I, along with all members of Oregon's bipartisan House and Senate delegation as well as House and Senate members from Washington, asked for funding for NMI because of its goal to improve the Department of Defense's industrial base by strengthening the Northwest's diverse, value-added manufacturing sector.

Through research and development to enhance the reliability, cost effectiveness and performance of defense related products and through increasing our ability to train and deliver work-ready employees to defense related manufacturing companies, NMI will increase and improve the contributions of Northwest companies to the nation's industrial preparedness and security.

We have seen what innovative and cutting edge technologies can come out of the Northwest to benefit our military:

HemCon, located in my Congressional district, has developed a new bandage technology that has already saved the lives of dozens of U.S. soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. In fact, the Army Surgeon General has requested that every soldier deployed to a combat zone carry a HemCon Bandage in their first-aid kit.

Similarly, through work being done at iSense in my district, military doctors will have the technology to quickly detect severe blood loss or internal bleeding. There is no doubt in my mind that these technologies have and will save the lives of Americans at home and abroad.

Another company, InSport, is ensuring that our service members have the best products available in combat. InSport has developed base layer t-shirts for our military that resist the build up of bacteria that adversely affects performance on the battlefield.

Yet, despite these innovative companies, challenges remain. Many small defense companies, especially those in manufacturing, have trouble finding skilled workers.

The NMI will help train manufacturing workers and increase participation of innovative companies. It will allow an entire region's companies to learn from each other, and more Oregonians to learn to earn.

More importantly, it will save the Department of Defense, DOD, time and money by making these manufacturers more efficient and competitive and, consequently, able to provide better and less expensive products.

Mr. Chairman, I support the Northwest Manufacturing Initiative and I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.